Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ~~~~.

Hi, many thanks for your contributions and Ramadan Mubarak! I just added an image to Holy Spirit (Islam), there are many pages in template:Muhammad, some of them need attention, for example page splitting of the moon is written as if Muhammad (p.b.u.h) really did split the moon, the page even shows an image of a crater in the moon, what do you think?Kiatdd (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear from you again, Kiatdd. Yes, the Ramadan has commenced. The image you added is nice, though images are discouraged in Islam. What is your view? About the article Splitting of the moon, it presents various views of Muslim scholars, and may be balanced. And Muslims believe that Muhammad (p.b.u.h) really did split the moon. The image is from Nasa and must be real. Now, it is not necessary that the shown split-line must be that one believed by Muslims. But Muslims do believe the miracle.--AsceticRosé 04:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gautier Juynboll was a professor of Islamic studies, the focus of his research was hadith. Here is a summary of what he has written in page 483 and 484 of his book encyclopedia of canonical hadith [1]:

a person named Shu'ba is common link and may therefore be held responsible for the wording of this tradition...the matn (text) pertains to one of the recognized miracles ascribed to Muhammad of which there is however no trace in sira (of ibn ishaq) an observation that seems to tally neatly with Shu'ba's suggested authorship of the wording. It is surely unthinkable that the compiler of sira of ibn ishaq who died some 10 years before shu'ba would neglect to record a miracle allegedly worked by Muhammad if he had heard of it...In Tafsir Tabari there are several reports about verse 54:1-2 and its association with the alleged miracle. According to tabari two of the reports are allegedly transmitted by Mujahid (d.718)...There are two good reasons for not linking Mujahid with it. Firstly, Mujahid's Tafsir now separately available does not corroborate the mujahid report on this matter from tabari. Mujahid's name is absent from the isnad strand supporting the crucial explanation. Secondly the two reports of Mujahid in Tabari are headed by two consecutive transmitters who are generally held to be unreliable: Mihran Abi Umar and Muhammad Humayd, so identifying the said interpretation with Mujahid is to be rejected.

and here is the most important part of Juynboll's analysis:

the story about the miracle may therefore be considered to have come into existence about half-way the eight century...strictly speaking when the most stringent criteria underlying the concept of tawatur (trustworthiness) are brought to bear it falls far short of that qualification.

Juynboll's analysis says that the story of splitting of the moon virtually didn't exist before mid eight century CE, i.e. around the year 750 CE and considering the fact that Muhammad (pbuh) lived from 570 to 632 CE, we conclude that the miracle came into existence about 120 years after his death.Kiatdd (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian scholar Al-Suyuti in his book Al-Khasais-ul-Kubra has mentioned this miracle. This book is a collection of all the miracles of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that could be tracked down by various reliable sources. A Urdu version of the book is available online. Muslim scholar Muhammad Shafi Usmani in his Tafsir book Maariful Quran has also discussed about this and ruled that this event is true. The relevant part of this Tafsir book can be downloaded from here. From http://www.islamibayanaat.com/EMQ.htm this website, you can download the whole MQ. My comment is that about some remote historical events it is difficult to say what actually happened. So a believer’s notion should be that he believes what actually then happened by the will of Allah. Personally I believe the miracle because the holy Quran in 54:1-2 mentions it and Muslim scholars – whom we rely upon for Islamic sharia rulings – have verified this.

You didn’t say what your notion is about the images.

Earlier, we had a discussion about the importance of Quranic explanation. There is a book The Authority of Sunnah by Muhammad Taqi Usmani. A pdf is also available online. You can read it.--AsceticRosé 10:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qur'anic exegetes agree on relating 54:1-2 to the story but a consensus may be ignored in the light of evidence from research. Knowledge is about evidence, not consensus. BTW, I found another source, chapter 2 of Cambridge companion to Muhammad(pbuh)[2] by Uri Rubin, pages 39-60, I haven't read that yet but I think we can update page:s.o.m based on Rubin's and Juynboll's works. we will probably edit s.o.m, would you mind adding it to your watchlist.Thanks.Kiatdd (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(p.s. the images in page Muhammad(pbuh) is per consensus, have you seen the consensus page?)

I looked at reference #20, it shows ten hadiths in english translation, all of the hadiths except one say that Aisha was married at the age of 6. So only one hadith says that she was engaged at 6. As for that one hadith that says she was engaged, the translation is incorrect. The hadith which I speak of is this. (Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234: ) http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/058-sbt.php#005.058.234

Now, if you can read Arabic, you can go to this site and read that same hadith in Arabic and it says married, not engaged. http://sunnah.com/urn/36400

If you cant read Arabic, just copy and paste it into google translate and it will give you the same thing. http://translate.google.com/

Also, you will find that the scholars on Islam QA translated that hadith into married. http://islamqa.info/en/ref/1493

Conclusion:

Clearly the Prophet had a wife, not a fiancee. Out of 10 of those hadiths in reference #20, only 1 said engaged instead of married, and that translation wasn't correct. So the Aisha page should say married instead of "betrothed".

I'd like to finish with a saying from the Prophet himself:

“Whoever lies about me deliberately, let him take his place in Hell.”

108.89.20.139 (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been moved at article's talk-page.--AsceticRosé 10:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al Khasais-ul-Kubra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Egyptian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead contains the info of conviction twice:

"On 28 February 2013, the tribunal sentenced him to death by hanging for two charges among the eight committed during the 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh.[5][6][7]The tribunal has been criticized as well as supported by international observers.[8][9][10][11] Sayeedi was convicted on 8 charges on 28 February 2013 and was sentenced to death for two of the charges."

check it

-- রাহাত | ✉ 07:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking it...--AsceticRosé 08:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it contained the information twice. I've self reverted it. User:Ctg4Rahat, many thanks for pointing that out, and my sincere apology for the mistake.--AsceticRosé 09:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining why you edited State of Palestine in the way you did? Your edit summary said you thought the "previous language was better", but I can't see why. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]